Do pretty much all bulldogs have health issues due to inbreeding? One user dares to say, "No they don't, no they fucking don't." /r/aww (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
12 ups - 0 downs = 12 votes
Someone posted a picture of bulldogs to /r/aww, and so the typical conversation about adopting vs. breeding comes up.
"Enjoy your expensive inbred sacks of disease."
A case of mistakenly identified sarcasm.
One user doesn't like it when a vet tech talks about bulldogs' health issues.
23 comments submitted at 18:21:50 on Oct 19, 2014 by commentsrus
As the owner of a Boston terrier, I can't tell you how many times people have bitched me out over the years on reddit for it. The most common criticism I get is that it's selfish to own a "designer dog" that has health issues and we're also condemning stray dogs to death because we buy from a breeder. It's a dumb argument because:
- Boston terriers aren't "designer dogs". They were the first American breed, they've been around for quite a while.
- Ours - and the 5 others my wife and her family have owned over the years - have all been in good health.
- In fact, she's incredibly athletic and can easily outrun/outmaneuver most dogs. She legitimately likes to run and sprint across yards and fields.
- Most importantly, she's loved and cared for, and any health risks, wants or needs she has are taken care of.
- We buy from a breeder because we're guaranteed a healthy animal from a healthy bloodline.
- We didn't adopt a mutt because we wanted a Boston. She's perfect for us right now and we'll be getting a lab when we have time to train one properly as we did with her. We specifically want these dogs because they match our lifestyle, and happy owners make happy dogs.
I could go on forever. In the end, these people are idiots. It's one thing to complain about obvious breeding issues. It's another to criticize someone when you don't even know if they bought an animal that has these or if they bought one from a respected, trusted breeder.
The purchase and demand for these designer dogs (nearly all AKC breeds are now designer, regardless of past history) are leading directly to the issues that we are seeing today with many pure-bred dog breeds becoming genetically unhealthy. By seeking out a specific breed and buying into the AKC cert, you become part of the problem, even if your particular dog doesn't exhibit genetic dysfunction.
I don't get how the person you're replying to doesn't see a problem with buying a pure bred. There's no way there's no inbreeding there.
Because they love their dog, treat it well, and feel that they are a good person who treats all dogs well and wouldn't harm any of them, therefore they couldn't possibly be a part of a societal problem that causes a lot of harm to a lot of dogs.
> By seeking out a specific breed and buying into the AKC cert, you become part of the problem, even if your particular dog doesn't exhibit genetic dysfunction.
No, we're not.
To illustrate why this is a silly thing to say, let me bring up two examples commonly demonized on reddit. When we bought my wife's engagement ring, I went out of my way to find a company that only sells Canadian diamonds, and also donates 5% to communities that have been negatively affected by the diamond trade. Similarly, when we bought our Boston, we went out of our way to find a breeder that only breeds Bostons, has traced the bloodlines back for decades, and meticulously tracks any genetic issues.
In both cases, your logic implies that we're part of the problem because we continue the demand. It's a nice sentiment, and it sounds compelling. But it's not at all true. I have so many issues with this broken logic - it's just not at all consistent with actual, real world action.
According to you, it logically follows that:
- We buy a diamond/Boston.
- We further the demand for diamonds/Bostons.
- Other individuals, driven by our influence, buy more diamonds/Bostons.
- The cycle repeats itself.
But in its application in the real world, how are we responsible for those other individuals? How are we responsible for the actual actions they take? In our pursuit of happiness, all we can do is to make sure we do it responsibly. Which we did. How are we supposed to control what other individuals do? They can either take the responsible route, or they can take the irresponsible route. We took the former, but we assume no responsibility for the latter - it's not our life, we can't control them. What, are we supposed to assume that everything we do will be irresponsibly repeated by others? Are we supposed to limit our happiness because someone else is an idiot?
This particular application of the "social responsibility" argument is such a lazy one. To say that a responsible citizen limits their happiness because a complete stranger might do it in an irresponsible way is just plain stupid. If anything, that responsible citizen has a positive effect because they're growing a demand for the responsible course of action.
It's like blaming violent actions on violent video games, movies, etc. Are there people that take inspiration from them and end up hurting others? Absolutely. Look, there are some nuts out there. Does that mean the creator of the content that nutjob consumed is responsible in any way for those horrible actions? No, because that would be a stupid thing to say. Nobody is responsible for the actions of others.
> Nobody is responsible for the actions of others.
When did I say that? With your whole screed there, you still managed to miss the point: what you do, you do in the context of a society that is larger than you are. if there is a huge demand for specific kinds of dogs with pedigreed backgrounds, breeders of all sorts will step up to fill the unsupplied demand. One person does not a huge demand make, but by also wanting a pedigreed dog you help bolster that demand.
> When did I say that?
You repeated it several times in this very post:
> what you do, you do in the context of a society that is larger than you are
> if there is a huge demand for specific kinds of dogs with pedigreed backgrounds, breeders of all sorts will step up to fill the unsupplied demand
> by also wanting a pedigreed dog you help bolster that demand
That's exactly what you're saying.
Do you eat meat? Using your logic, you're bolstering a demand for meat, and in the effort to meet that demand, you're responsible for the shortcuts companies take that negatively affect animals.
Do you drive a car? Using your logic, you're bolstering a demand for oil, and in the effort to meet that demand, you're responsible for the unethical tactics that companies take that negatively affect entire countries of people.
Do you wear jewelry? Using your logic, you're bolstering a demand for diamonds an any other precious stone, and in the effort to meet that demand, you're responsible for the unethical tactics that companies take that negatively affect entire countries of people (again).
We could do this all day, but you can do everything I just listed in an ethical (or more ethical) way, and in doing so you're only responsible for your own actions, not what the demand causes.
People in glass houses... I'd be shocked if you don't participate in some activity that others use your exact logic to demonize.
I'm not the one attempting to justify the inhumane treatment of dogs in order to satisfy breed demand. Basically everything you're posting here boils down to "I got mine, Jack; fuck you."
Besides, if you don't think that you're responsible for the demand that you cause, you might fit in better over in /r/Libertarian.
> inhumane treatment of dogs in order to satisfy breed demand
Straw man much? If you can quote me where I justified "inhuman treatment of dogs", I'll give you gold.
> "I got mine, Jack; fuck you."
More straw men.
> Besides, if you don't think that you're responsible for the demand that you cause, you might fit in better over in /r/Libertarian.
More straw men.
> Straw man much?
Oh, now you care about strawman arguments? :)
So tell me: if you contribute to the demand for a breed whose breeding population cannot sustain the demand, do you not bear a small measure of responsibility for the methods required to meet demand?
I've already answered that several times. Please reread.
I just find it hypocritical because a lot of people go against the gain regarding pets and what would be best.
Cats shouldn't be let outdoors, but being indoors will likely lead to a sedentary lifestyle and risk of health issues. Dogs often are adopted by people who don't give them as much exercise as the breed needs (leading to health issues) or poorly trained (leading to health risks and dangerous dogs).
I mean it is true purebred dogs have health issues and there are mutts who need homes, but I often wonder if the people bringing it up are throwing stones in glass houses regarding ethical animal raising.
You are correct, that is why I chase my cats around the house several times a day.
> Cats shouldn't be let outdoors, but being indoors will likely lead to a sedentary lifestyle and risk of health issues. Dogs often are adopted by people who don't give them as much exercise as the breed needs (leading to health issues) or poorly trained (leading to health risks and dangerous dogs).
There are so many more pressing issues with raising animals, such as the ones you just mentioned. People just adopt animals thinking that it's not a big deal, but then fail to give that animal the attention and love it deserves.
> there are mutts who need homes, but I often wonder if the people bringing it up are throwing stones in glass houses regarding ethical animal raising.
I agree. The common argument that buying a dog from a breeder doesn't help the overall problem is a bit ignorant, since neither does adopting one! It helps that single dog, that's it. It literally does nothing for the overall problem. It doesn't address the root cause of the issue, although plenty of people like to pretend that it does.